Mapania palustris
Content
Description
Leaves coriaceous, linear to broadly linear, with the midnerve prominent beneath and 2 of the lateral nerves more or less prominent above, slightly narrowed towards the conduplicate base, gradually to rather abruptly narrowed to the up to 10 cm long, aculeate-scabrous, triquetrous tail, aculeate-scabrous on the margins and on the keel beneath, up to 2½ m by (2-)3-6 cm;
Inflorescence capitate, semiglobose to globose, with few to numerous spikelets, (1½-)4-6(-8) cm across.
Flowers about as long as the glumes, (7-)10-15 mm long.
Stamens 4-8 mm long.
Distribution
Asia-Tropical: Assam (Assam present); Borneo present; Malaya (Peninsular Malaysia present); New Guinea present; Philippines (Philippines present); Sumatera (Sumatera present), Natuna Is present, Riouw Arch present, S. China present, SE. Asia present, W. Java present
SE. Asia (from Assam to Indo-China and S. China); in Malesia: Sumatra, Riouw Arch., Malay Peninsula, W. Java, Borneo, Natuna Is., Philippines, New Guinea.
Notes
The most variable species of the Malesian Mapaniae. However different in appearance the extremes may be, it seems impossible to treat them as separate species. The characters used by UITTIEN () are unfit for practical use, as all the ‘species’ are connected by numerous intermediates. M. andamanica CLARKE and M. banahaensis ELM. are more slender and have smaller — often much smaller — spikelets and flowers than typical M. palustris. As was already stated by UITTIEN, M. albescens CLARKE differs from M. andamanica only by the pale colour of the dried specimens.
M. affinis MERR. was separated on account of the larger inflorescences and the shorter glabrous scapes. However, still larger inflorescences and glabrous scapes are often found in M. palustris. M. grandiceps KÜK. is also a stout form, but with scabrid scapes.
I fail to see any difference whatever between M. silhetensis CLARKE and M. javana UITTIEN. Both have inflorescences with few large spikelets. This form may have some taxonomical value; KURZ treated it as a variety. MIQUEL (1870) very properly remarked that the size of the spikelets diminishes when their number increases. CLARKE, who saw but a few specimens of typical M. palustris, thought M. silhetensis were also characterized by the smooth scapes in contrast to the scabrous scapes of M. palustris, and UITTIEN characterized M. javana also by the leaf-bases rounded on the back. These characters do not hold good.
In CLARKE'S flower diagram (1909; also in PFEIFFER, l.c., whose diagrams are obviously copied from those of CLARKE’S) the outermost flower scales are figured as being connate. I always find them completely free.
The specimen from “East Java, PLOEM” cited by UITTIEN (1936, p. 287) was collected in W. Java. No Mapania is known to occur in E. Java.
Stout specimens of M. palustris are often confused in the herbaria with M. macrocephala, but the latter is readily recognizable by the central flowering stems and the very long leaf-like bracts of the inflorescence.
M. affinis MERR. was separated on account of the larger inflorescences and the shorter glabrous scapes. However, still larger inflorescences and glabrous scapes are often found in M. palustris. M. grandiceps KÜK. is also a stout form, but with scabrid scapes.
I fail to see any difference whatever between M. silhetensis CLARKE and M. javana UITTIEN. Both have inflorescences with few large spikelets. This form may have some taxonomical value; KURZ treated it as a variety. MIQUEL (1870) very properly remarked that the size of the spikelets diminishes when their number increases. CLARKE, who saw but a few specimens of typical M. palustris, thought M. silhetensis were also characterized by the smooth scapes in contrast to the scabrous scapes of M. palustris, and UITTIEN characterized M. javana also by the leaf-bases rounded on the back. These characters do not hold good.
In CLARKE'S flower diagram (1909; also in PFEIFFER, l.c., whose diagrams are obviously copied from those of CLARKE’S) the outermost flower scales are figured as being connate. I always find them completely free.
The specimen from “East Java, PLOEM” cited by UITTIEN (1936, p. 287) was collected in W. Java. No Mapania is known to occur in E. Java.
Stout specimens of M. palustris are often confused in the herbaria with M. macrocephala, but the latter is readily recognizable by the central flowering stems and the very long leaf-like bracts of the inflorescence.
Citation
UITTIEN 1935 – In: Rec. Trav. Bot. Néerl.: 194
ELM. 1938 – In: Leafl. Philip. Bot.: 3537
SCHEFF. 1874 – In: Nat. Tijd. N. I.: 89
Merr. 1923 – In: En. Philip.: 131
OHWI 1942 – In: Bot. Mag. Tokyo: 211
F.-VILL. 1936 – In: Rec. Trav. Bot. Néerl.: 285
F.-VILL. 1923 – In: En. Philip.: 132
BOECK. 1871 – In: Linnaea: 138
Clarke 1894 – In: Fl. Br. Ind.: 681
Ridl. 1891 – In: J. Str. Br. R. As. Soc.: 15
Ridl. 1925 – In: Fl. Mal. Pen.: 172
1844: Cat. Hort. Bog.: 297
Miq. 1856 – In: Fl. Ind. Bat.: 334
UITTIEN 1936 – In: Rec. Trav. Bot. Néerl.: 288
C.B. ROB. 1911 – In: Philip. J. Sc.: Bot. 194
ZOLL. 1854 – In: Syst. Verz.: 61
ex STEUD. 1855 – In: Syn.: 134
KURZ 1869 – In: J. As. Soc. Beng.: 78
KERN 1968 – In: Back. & Bakh.f., Fl. Java 3: 455
UITTIEN 1936 – In: Rec. Trav. Bot. Néerl.: 288
Clarke 1898 – In: J. Linn. Soc. Bot.: 95
F.-VILL. 1909: Ill. Cyp.: t. 109
Merr. 1923 – In: En. Philip.: 132
UITTIEN 1936 – In: Rec. Trav. Bot. Néerl.: 287
F.-VILL. 1894 – In: J. Linn. Soc. Bot.: 95
Merr. 1914 – In: Philip. J. Sc.: Bot. 267
UITTIEN 1936 – In: Rec. Trav. Bot. Néerl.: 288
UITTIEN 1936 – In: Rec. Trav. Bot. Néerl.: 287
PFEIFF. 1925: p. 449. – In: Bot. Arch.: f. 7, 34, 51
F.-VILL. 1949 – In: Back., Bekn. Fl. Java, (em. ed.), 10: fam. 246, p. 49
Clarke 1898 – In: J. Linn. Soc. Bot.: 94
MOR. 1846: Syst. Verz.: 99
Ridl. 1925 – In: Fl. Mal. Pen.: 172
F.-VILL. 1922: Atlas: f. 269
UITTIEN 1949 – In: Back., Bekn. Fl. Java, (em. ed.), 10: fam. 246, p. 50
Koord. 1911 – In: Exk. Fl. Java: 203
F.-VILL. 1907 – In: Mat. Fl. Mal. Pen. (Monoc.): 103